Miles Howe's interview with peace activist Tamara Lorincz, Leslie's Hypocrisy? Peace Activist Lorincz stages Earth Day protest outside NDP enviro-critic's office, is an excellent exposition of Lorincz's passionate convictions on the issues of militarism, politics and their intersection in contemporary Halifax. I'm equally concerned with militarism in the world as a colossal waste of money, a source of rapacious profits for some of the world's least-savory individuals and corporations, a coercive tool for some of the most repressive regimes and agendas on the globe, and a geopolitically destabilizing force.

That said, I can't agree with Lorincz's "you're either with us or against us" political approach to this issue. The socio-political matrix of Canadian society is far more complex than this simple dialectic. There are two main points to be considered.

There's more than one way to skin a cat

In Military subversion: Adventurism, seduction, and transformation on the front lines (published in Rabble.ca) I laid out a case for "subverting" the Canadian military. By "subverting" I mean refocusing the military's agenda on a plethora of socially desirable objectives. There are a large number of programs where energetic, gung-ho, young men and women, with strong skills, good training, appropriate equipment and technology, and a disciplined approach could participate in:

1) International humanitarian assistance: consider the role that the Canadian military was able to play in Haiti after the devastating 2010 earthquake.

2) Coastal patrols: there are many instances of human, drugs, weapons, and other contraband smuggling in Canadian waters.

3) Fisheries patrols: Canadian territorial waters cover 7.1 million square kilometers, far greater than the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can cover.

4) Search and Rescue: Sinking ships, fishers in distress, air crashes -- the military's skills, capacities, and technology can help avert or mitigate disaster and human suffering.

5) Arctic Patrol: a sphere of growing importance now that arctic sea ice is melting at a record pace as a result of climate change.

6) Domestic disaster relief: Earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, mudslides, avalanches, hurricanes, tornados, ice storms … Canada has had recent experience with all of these.

7) Scientific research: Much useful scientific information could be collected by ships and aircraft engaged on patrol and in training missions.

8) Pollution detection and remediation: 4.8 million tones of debris are currently floating over the Pacific enroute to Canadian shores as a result of the tsunami that hit Japan in 2011. Monitoring where this is headed, and when it might wash up on Canadian coastlines, could be of critical importance.

9) Peace-keeping, peace making, and genocide prevention: Since 1965 Canada has participated in 33 United Nations peacekeeping missions.

Canada needs the capacity to address all of these important and pressing issues. Re-orienting and re-tooling the Canadian military to meet these objectives -- rather than aggressive militaristic ones -- offers the opportunity to refocus the Canadian military to socially useful ends. Implicit in this would be that levels of spending, and what funds are spent on, would have to be consistent with these values. Thus, F-35 stealth fighter jets, that have no purpose other than an aggressive first-strike battlefield one, would have no place in this scenario. Portable water-purification plants would be a good choice. Every decision with respect to equipment purchases would need to be carefully viewed through the lens of how such equipment might, or might not, serve such re-defined objectives

One can, of course, raise the legitimate objection that Canada could augment or develop the capacity to address these issues through mechanisms other than the military (the Coast Guard, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Katimavik, the RCMP, a peace corps, etc.). This is a perfectly reasonable position that I have no objection to. However, the political reality in Canada in 2013 is that calls for the outright elimination of the Canadian military are not apt to be successful. For example, a Leger Marketing poll (1,707 respondents with a margin of error of 2.37 percentage points 19 times out of 20) in December, 2010 found that that a commanding 75.7 percent of respondents had "trust and confidence in the Canadian Forces to do a good job." Astonishingly, only 54.1 per cent of respondents trusted the federal government to do a good job!

Thus, it is my contention, that a political campaign to reorient the military to socially desirable ends has a much greater chance for gaining political traction than a campaign for simply eliminating the military. There is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.

Politics is a collective endeavour in which compromise and consensus are integral components

Lorincz's accusation of hypocrisy on the part of Halifax MP Megan Leslie for protesting cutbacks to environmental spending but urging the federal government (in 2011) to keep shipbuilding jobs in Halifax as part of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is off base.

As Lorincz, having been a federal NDP candidate knows, New Democratic Party policy -- both federally and provincially -- is determined by the membership of the party itself. In contrast to many other political parties, policy resolutions by the membership of the NDP are binding -- not optional -- on the party's leadership. These policies are then further articulated within the democratic structures of the federal NDP caucus, a 100 strong group of MPs from almost every province of Canada. As an NDP MP, Megan Leslie has the obligation to reflect both what the membership has determined should be the party's policy (and a policy Convention in Montreal has just taken place earlier this month) and what the caucus position is. What is that position?

The New Democratic Party has consistently supported Canada's role as a peacekeeping nation and has consistently opposed the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighters. It has opposed cutbacks to the Canadian Coast Guard and has supported improvements to Canada's search and rescue capacity. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has promised to "fortify the ability of Canada's armed forces to respond to crises and disasters." The NDP's 2011 election platform promised to maintain current levels of defence spending and affirmed that under an NDP government the Canadian Forces would be "properly staffed, equipped and trained to effectively address the full range of possible military operations."

The NDP's 2011 election platform established three priorities for the Canadian military that military analyst David Pratt notes are a significant departure from postwar Canadian defence policy, which hitherto has been based upon: a) the defence of Canada; b) the defence of North America with the United States; and c) contributions to international peace and security. In contrast, Jack Layton's 2011 NDP policy identified the priorities as a) defending Canada; b) supporting peacekeeping and peacemaking; and c) assisting with natural disasters at home and abroad. This is a significant departure in two regards:

1. "Peacekeeping and peacemaking" represent a quite different approach from "promoting international peace and security." The concept of combat is firmly embedded in the latter, whereas it lies on the extremity of the former. As Pratt writes, "With the exception of the Libyan bombing campaign, the NDP has shown a marked reluctance to commit the Canadian Forces to combat missions. Consequently, it is reasonable to believe that the party will be predisposed against any future combat missions."

2. Secondly, astute readers may have noticed that continental obligations to the United States (and perhaps even to North American military structures such as NATO and NORAD) are conspicuously absent from the NDP platform, which instead focuses on domestic and international disaster relief as an important priority for the military. In contrast to previous Canadian administrations, the "joined-at-the-hip" conception of Canadian-American relations is conspicuous by its absence. 

Furthermore, as the elected Member of Parliament from Halifax, Megan Leslie also has the obligation to represent the interests of her riding. Her statement in Parliament on February, 2011 that:

"As the MP for Halifax, where the Halifax Graving Dock Company started in 1889 and the shipyard continues on today as part of Irving Shipbuilding, I am proud of the rich history of shipbuilders and shipbuilding throughout the Maritimes. It only makes sense to keep building ships in Halifax. We have the workers, the capacity, the history and the know-how."

This is certainly consistent with that responsibility, even if not everyone in the riding is in agreement.

I think there is a lot of truth in Lorincz's observation that:

"My experience being involved with the party (the NDP) made me realize that parties don't lead on issues. They ascertain where the public is moving on certain issues and if they feel like there's enough momentum behind certain issues then they'll step out on it."

There is an old saw that, as a leader, if you are so far ahead of your followers that they lose sight of you then you cease being a leader. Responsive and responsible political parties are engaged in a perpetual dance with their memberships, and with the public at large -- sometimes taking the lead round the dance floor, and sometimes following. As in any good waltz, they need to stay in touch and be responsive to one another, because in a healthy political dynamic they need to move in concert. If you get too far apart, you're dancing by yourself.

There's certainly a role in the political process for activists like Tamara Lorincz, who has taken a stance outside of a formal political party and is then in a position to speak the unvarnished truth as she sees it. There is also a vital place in the political process for activists like Megan Leslie, working inside a political party. There are advantages and disadvantages to both situations.

Ultimately politics is a collective exercise. Implicit in that is the need for compromise and consensus. Working with others, and recognizing that there can be more than one legitimately held position, means that we can't always have it all. And Rome wasn't built in a day -- it's not possible to achieve everything at one. We shouldn't be complacent about the status quo, but we have to be realistic at the same time. Otto von Bismarck's observation that "politics is the art of the possible" indicates the core pragmatic nature of the discipline. Not only was Rome not built in a day, but there are many roads to get there.